Friday, December 13, 2013

More SNOWGLOBE news

Like I have been saying "SNOWGLOBE" as more information comes out, and people see ...

NSA leaders split on giving amnesty to Snowden

CBS News learned Thursday that the information National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden has revealed so far is just a fraction of what he has. In fact, he has so much, some think it is worth giving him amnesty to get it back.

Rick Ledgett is the man who was put in charge of the Snowden leak task force by Gen. Keith Alexander, who heads the NSA. The task force's job is to prevent another leak like this one from happening again. They're also trying to figure out how much damage the Snowden leaks have done, and how much damage they could still do.

Snowden, who is believed to still have access to 1.5 million classified documents he has not leaked, has been granted temporary asylum in Moscow, which leaves the U.S. with few options.

JOHN MILLER: He's already said, "If I got amnesty, I would come back." Given the potential damage to national security, what would your thought on making a deal be?

RICK LEDGETT: So, my personal view is, yes, it's worth having a conversation about. I would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured, and my bar for those assurances would be very high. It would be more than just an assertion on his part.

MILLER: Is that a unanimous feeling?

LEDGETT: It's not unanimous.

Among those who think making a deal is a bad idea is Leggett's boss, Gen. Keith Alexander.

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: This is analogous to a hostage-taker taking 50 people hostage, shooting 10 and then say, "If you give me full amnesty, I'll let the other 40 go." What do you do?

MILLER: It's a dilemma.

GEN. ALEXANDER: It is.

MILLER: Do you have a pick?

GEN. ALEXANDER: I do. I think people have to be held accountable for their actions. … Because what we don't want is the next person to do the same thing, race off to Hong Kong and to Moscow with another set of data, knowing they can strike the same deal.

We asked Gen. Alexander, Ledgett and former NSA Director Michael Hayden why the Russians would give Snowden amnesty if they already have Snowden's information, and they said they would be sadly disappointed in the intelligence services if they hadn't gotten that material.

The question is, for damage control, what's the difference between a couple of foreign governments having it -- that's bad -- or having it out there in the newspapers or across many other governments?

You can see more of this story Sunday on "60 Minutes."

Matthew Taylor and Nick Hopkins
The Guardian,

The Index on Censorship report says that, following the publication of NSA files obtained by whistleblower Edward Snowden, pictured, the European Union failed to issue a strong collective statement against mass surveillance. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images/The Guardian

The European Union has failed to stand up for whistleblower Edward Snowden or properly defend newspapers that have written articles about the scale of mass state surveillance, according to freedom of expression group Index on Censorship.

To mark the launch of a report on Thursday, Mike Harris, the organisation's head of advocacy, criticised the EU for failing to take a strong stance against the mass state surveillance revealed by Snowden and a range of other freedom of expression issues in Europe and elsewhere.

"No EU member state defended Edward Snowden as a whistleblower," said Harris. "The EU failed to issue a strong collective statement against mass surveillance, nor have unjust laws such as criminal defamation or national insult laws prevalent across the continent been repealed."

He said despite new powers to deal with breaches to the right of freedom of expression the EU had failed to defend newspapers such as the Guardian, which has come under intense political pressure for reporting on the scale of mass state surveillance based on Snowden's revelations.

"Media freedom in particular has come under attack – from the recent seizure of the Guardian's computers, through to the Hungarian government's clampdown on their media – all in states that have signed up to strong human rights commitments. While the EU likes to talk about the importance of 'European values', it is failing to practice what it preaches."

The Guardian, along with some of the world's other major media organisations, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel, began disclosing details of the extent and reach of secret surveillance programmes run by Britain's eavesdropping centre, GCHQ, and the National Security Agency in June.

The revelations have sparked a huge debate on the scale of mass surveillance and the legal framework and oversight governing western spy agencies. Civil liberties groups have criticised the UK government for putting intense political pressure on the Guardian and other media groups covering the leaks rather than addressing the implications of the mass surveillance programmes that have been uncovered.

The report, Time to step up: the EU and freedom of expression, says the EU should have done more and also highlights its failure to take strong action in Italy under Silvio Berlusconi where there have been serious concerns around media plurality concerns or in Hungary where there has been a severe crackdown on press freedoms. It also criticises the EU's lack of support for democrats in the Middle East prior to the Arab spring, saying it failed to actively encourage and foster the spread of freedom and democracy in the region.

Harris said: "The EU has a hugely positive role to play in the world, as the home to some of the world's best places for freedom of expression and as the world's largest trading block with huge economic leverage. It is beginning to take a more proactive stance with more funding for human rights defenders and targeted sanctions on Belarus, but it can do so much more to support freedom in its neighbourhood."

Thursday, December 12, 2013

The drone war

Officials: US drone strike kills 13 in Yemen wedding convoy

By Ahmed Al-Haj, The Associated Press

Missiles fired by a U.S. drone slammed into a convoy of vehicles traveling to a wedding party in central Yemen on Thursday, killing at least 13 people, Yemeni security officials said.

The officials said the attack took place in the city of Radda, the capital of Bayda province, and left charred bodies and burnt out cars on the road. The city, a stronghold of al Qaeda militants, witnessed deadly clashes early last year between armed tribesmen backed by the military and al Qaeda gunmen in an attempt to drive them out of the city.

There were no immediate details on who was killed in the strike, and there were conflicting reports about whether there were militants traveling with the wedding convoy.

A military official said initial information indicated the drone mistook the wedding party for an al Qaeda convoy. He said tribesmen known to the villagers were among the dead.

One of the three security officials, however, said al Qaeda militants were suspected to have been traveling with the wedding convoy.

While the U.S. acknowledges its drone program in Yemen, it does not usually talk about individual strikes.

If further investigations determine that the victims were all civilians, the attack could fuel an outburst of anger against the United States and the government in Sanaa among a Yemeni public already opposed to the U.S. drone strikes.

Civilian deaths have bred resentments on a local level, sometimes undermining U.S. efforts to turn the public against the militants. The backlash in Yemen is still not as large as in Pakistan, where there is heavy pressure on the government to force limits on strikes — but public calls for a halt to strikes are starting to emerge.

In October, two U.N. human rights investigators called for more transparency from the United States and other countries about their drone programs, saying their secrecy is the biggest obstacle to determining the civilian toll of such strikes.

The missile attacks in Yemen are part of a joint U.S.-Yemeni campaign against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which Washington has called the most dangerous branch of the global terrorist network.

Thursday's drone strike is the second since a massive car bombing and coordinated assault on Yemen's military headquarters killed 56 people, including foreigners. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was retaliation for U.S. drone strikes that have killed dozens of the group's leaders.

Security forces in the Yemeni capital boosted their presence Thursday, setting up checkpoints across the city and sealing off the road to the president's residence, in response to what the Interior Ministry called threats of "terrorist plots" targeting vital institutions and government buildings.

Meanwhile, in the Yemen's restive northern, ultraconservative Sunni Muslim militants and rebels belonging to a branch of Shiite Islam battled each other with artillery and machine guns in clashes that killed more than 40 people, security officials said.

The violence between Islamic Salafi fighters and Hawthi rebels has raged for weeks in Yemen's northern province of Saada, but the latest sectarian clashes marked an expansion of the fighting to the neighboring province of Hagga. The government brokered a cease-fire last month to try to end the violence, but both sides have repeatedly broken the truce.

Officials said clashes began when ultraconservative Salafis took over a Hawthi stronghold in a mountainous area near the border with Saudi Arabia. The officials say that most of the casualties were on the Hawthi side.

The officials said that Salafis, however, accused Hawthis of trying to infiltrate their strongholds in the town of Fagga.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the fighting publicly.

Hawthi launched in insurgency in 2004 against autocratic President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who stepped down in 2012 after a popular uprising against his rule. Over the course of the Hawthi rebellion, hundreds of people were killed and an estimated 125,000 people uprooted until the rebels and the government struck a fragile cease-fire in 2010.

But the north remained restive despite the truce, and fighting flared along another fault line in November after Hawthis accused the Salafis of trying to gain a foothold in their territory by spreading their brand of Islam.

The rebels say their community of Shiite Muslims suffers discrimination and neglect and that the government has allowed ultraconservative Sunni extremists too strong a voice in the country. Hard-line Sunnis consider Shiites heretics.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Look who is balking ...

Do you think it is wise to try to push a sanctions bill...
I would call - Balk on the US government!

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo News1 hours ago

Bad news, White House: It looks like the Senate will push ahead with a legislative response to the Iran interim nuclear deal over your strenuous objections.

Good news, White House: The measure will most likely be so watered down that it will give President Barack Obama broad latitude to pursue his high-wire diplomatic effort to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.

And it won’t get voted on before January, at the earliest.

Lawmakers will act despite an aggressive campaign by the Obama Administration, including a classified question-and-answer session on Iran Wednesday with Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.

“If what we do next screws up the negotiations with the Iranians, then the Iranians weren’t serious about the negotiations,” one senator told Yahoo News after emerging from that closed-door briefing. The senator requested anonymity to discuss the still-fluid state of play in Congress.

Kerry, Obama’s point man on convincing lawmakers to hold their fire, declined to characterize the session. “We just had a good meeting,” he told reporters. Did he get his point across? “You should ask the senators,” he replied.

The senators were similarly tight-lipped.

At issue is how Congress will weigh in on an interim deal, unveiled late last month, under which Iran will freeze suspicious nuclear activities and allow intrusive (but as-yet unspecified) verification and monitoring in return for a partial easing of sanctions worth about $7 billion to its battered economy. The White House says any new legislation risks collapsing the talks by sending the message that Washington is negotiating in bad faith.

Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and staunch advocate of keeping pressure on Iran, has been in “furious negotiations” with Republicans on legislative language that would threaten sanctions if Iran balks at a comprehensive nuclear deal, a GOP aide told Yahoo News.

After the closed-door session, Menendez hinted that he might have an announcement later in the day but otherwise had no comment.

“Sen. Menendez is a very articulate advocate for the idea that the only reason the Iranians are at the table is because of pressure,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told reporters after the Kerry/Lew briefing.

“The only way that you’ll get a final deal that will protect us — and Israel and all of our friends in the region and the world at large — is to continue the pressure,” Graham said, underlining that he supports sanctions that “would only go into effect after the negotiating period.”

Under the interim agreement the United States and its partners tentatively reached with Iran, the two sides have six months to hammer out a comprehensive deal that trades easing of painful economic sanctions on Iran for verifiable assurances that the Islamic republic won’t build a nuclear weapon.

Graham predicted a “bipartisan breakthrough” on the measure soon and a vote “sometime no later than the middle of January.”

An early proposal from Menendez would have imposed sanctions after the six-month period — but give Obama the power to defer them for 30 days, and then again for another 30 days, if a broader deal appears imminent. After that, the administration would need to certify that Iran has met certain benchmarks in order to put off the sanctions.

(In some ways, the proposal resembles Congress’s response to then-President George W. Bush’s troop “surge” in Iraq: avoid any serious challenge to the policy, but require the executive branch to put its credibility on the line while informing Congress of signs of progress or failure.)

But some Republicans, including the top GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, favor an approach that would lay out what Congress considers an acceptable final deal. Some favor imposing sanctions if the deal does not clear that bar; others say the measure should simply get lawmakers on the record.

“We should pursue additional sanctions right now,” Sen. James Risch, an Idaho Republican who dislikes the interim deal, told Yahoo News. What form should that take? “Whichever will get the most number of votes, I’m in on,” replied Risch, a committed conservative with a reputation for pragmatism.

In any case, there are no legislative vehicles to pass whatever emerges from those discussions in 2013. Congress will press ahead with a defense spending bill and a budget deal — and lawmakers all agree that neither measure will carry Iran sanctions language.

An early January vote, though? Would Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid allow it?

Some close to Reid emphasize that he will do what is best for Senate Democrats, not the White House, with the 2014 mid-term elections fast approaching. Skeptical Republicans say he may have already done enough to delay passage of Iran legislation by announcing it should go through the Senate Banking Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee and keeping it from coming to a vote in 2013.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson told reporters after the Kerry/Lew meeting that he would make an announcement on Thursday at a hearing to assess the interim Iran deal. Earlier this week, Johnson said he favored giving Obama room for negotiations and would not push ahead with legislation “for now.”

While there are options for bypassing the committee process — potentially shaving a month or more from the overall timetable — Reid holds the key to bringing the measure to an actual vote.

That’s far from guaranteed, even with robust support among Democrats. If he does, however, history suggests an overwhelming vote. The last batch of sanctions, adopted over Obama’s objections in Dec. 2011, passed 100-0.

After that, the House of Representatives could either adopt the Senate measure or call a bicameral “conference” to find a compromise between the upper body’s bill and its own sanctions measure, passed 400-20 this summer.

At that point, Obama could opt to veto the measure, courting an override vote, or find other ways to dilute the measure.

The president, speaking at a forum on Middle East policy Saturday, pressed Congress to hold off for now on new legislation.

“If at the end of six months it turns out that we can’t make a deal, we’re no worse off, and in fact we have greater leverage with the international community to continue to apply sanctions and even strengthen them,” he said.

Interestingly, the interim agreement itself seems to recognize the tension between the White House and Congress on this issue.

“The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions,” it says
.

In the news... Russia

Why do you think this story popped up in the news today... as they have to back who in World War 3?
... Also in the news...

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV2 hours ago

FILE In this Oct. 1, 1999 file photo a Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile is launched from the …

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional strike and sees them as a "great equalizer" reducing the likelihood of aggression, a senior Russian official said Wednesday.

While Russia amended its military doctrine years ago to allow for the possibility of using nuclear weapons first in retaliation to a non-nuclear attack, the statement by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin reflected Moscow's concern about prospective U.S. conventional weapons.

Weapons that have been developed in the United States under the so-called "prompt global strike" program would be capable of striking targets anywhere in the world in as little as an hour with deadly precision. Russia, which has lagged far behind in developing such weapons, has described them as destabilizing.

Without naming the U.S., Rogozin told lawmakers in comments carried by Russian news agencies said that those who "experiment with non-nuclear strategic weapons" should remember that "if we come under attack, we will undoubtedly use nuclear weapons in certain situations to defend our territory and state interests."

He said that it should discourage any potential aggressor.

"We have never underestimated the role of nuclear weapons ... as a 'great equalizer,'" Rogozin said.

Asked for reaction, an official at North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in Brussels said, "NATO has stated repeatedly that it does not view Russia as an adversary. Last year at the Chicago Summit, NATO leaders reiterated their desire to see a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia. NATO is committed to the principles laid out in the Founding Act of the NATO-Russia Council, and works productively with Russia across a range of issues of common concern."

The Russian doctrine mirrors the American strategy during the Cold War, when the U.S. would not rule out using nuclear weapons first, because it feared it might have to do so in response to overwhelming conventional attack on western Europe by Soviet forces.

Rogozin said that Russia is working on developing its own version of the "prompt global strike" weapons, but wouldn't give any details.

The U.S. plans included modifying some of the existing nuclear-armed missiles to carry conventional warheads as well as designing new vehicles capable of traveling at least five times the speed of sound.

Russian officials said that such U.S. weapons wouldn't fall under any restrictions but would have combat efficiency comparable to nuclear weapons, and thus should be included in any prospective nuclear arms reduction talks.

Russian suspicions about the U.S. intentions have aggravated tensions caused by a dispute over the U.S.-led NATO missile defense program, which Moscow sees as a threat to its nuclear deterrent.

Russia has increasingly relied on nuclear weapons in its military strategy to compensate for a post-Soviet decline in its conventional forces. The nation's military doctrine says it may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that threatens Russia's existence.

Rogozin's comment comes a day after President Vladimir Putin pledged to continue an ambitious weapons modernization program and to expand Russia's military presence in the Arctic region. Putin has pointed at the U.S. navy presence in the Arctic Ocean as one of the reasons behind the buildup, saying that Russia is concerned because it takes U.S. missiles just 15 to 16 minutes to reach Moscow from a submarine in the Barents Sea region.

The statements reflected the current strain in Russian-U.S. relations, which have been hurt by disputes over the U.S.-led missile shield, Russia's human rights record and, most recently, differences over Ukraine.

___

NATO's official defense posture: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_87597.htm?mode=pressrelease ).

Monday, December 9, 2013

Sailing ship.

As a seer, like Nostradamus ...one has to call it... as they see it ... So... Just saying ....
His ship has to sail as a sea-AR (that is pirate talk, for ye dead men... "Meaning"

Born: 10-11-48 R.I.D.J.L. 12-WAT-13

Is Ray Mabus Nostradamus’ MABUS?

By JOHN HOGUE | Published: 20 MAY 2009

Ray Mabus stumping for Obama in election year 2008. Photo: Rogelio Solis, AP.

Friends,

Ray Mabus was sworn in yesterday as Secretary of the Navy. This fulfills a prediction I documented last year over a month before the national presidential elections in my digital book, see Antichrist.

There is a whole section about him in the chapter about Barack Obama called “Obama the Mabus.” I stated that Obama would pick Mabus as a member of his cabinet and that it would start doomsday tongues to wag about the return to the Middle East of the man who was Obama’s special advisor to Arab (Islamic) Middle Eastern affairs throughout his presidential campaign.

No one can deny that this former US Naval Officer, Governor of Mississippi and former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia under President Clinton has the executive experience to be Secretary of the Navy and the hands-on diplomatic skill sets as the highest civilian official steering the US Navy in its chief arena of operations in the years to come. A majority of US Naval assets are patrolling the waters around the Arabian Peninsula either in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, fighting Somali pirates in the Gulf of Oman. There are also warships constantly stationed in waters directly familiar to Mabus during his short naval career in the early 1970s: the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

If there is a war between Israel and its Arab neighbors, if there is an air strike by Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if Pakistan collapses, Ray Mabus will have undeniable prophetic significance as the only candidate in my 25 years of search through Nostradamus’ clues for the man who would be Mabus. Indeed, he IS “Mabus” by birth name; however, I still do not believe the obvious is what Nostradamus meant. The name Mabus is a code name.

Whoever Mabus is, his death triggers the events listed in one of Nostradamus’ most apocalyptic prophecies. Ray Mabus just happens to be mentioned outright, either as a cruel coincidence or by the 16th-century seer’s prescient intent.

Century 2 Quatrain 62:

Mabus puis tost alors mourra, viendra,

De gens & bestes vne horrible defaite:

Puis tout¬† coup la vengeance on verra,

Cent, main, soif, faim, quand courra la comete.

Mabus very soon then will die, [then] will come,

A horrible undoing of people and animals,

At once one will see vengeance,

One hundred powers, thirst, famine, when the comet will pass.

Nostradamus (1555)

Here again is a brief overview about Nostradamus’ three antichrist and a breakdown of this prophecy I wrote back on 1 April in my blog entry entiled “Ray Mabus Upped the Antichrist?”

***

The person Nostradamus code named “Mabus” is believed to be the third and final man in an evil trinity. The first, code named “PAUNAYLORON.” The second, code named “Hister.” The third is code named “Mabus.”

Antichrist One is “Napoleon King” (PAUNAYLORON = NAPAULON ROY, old French for “Roi” — King).

Antichrist Two is “Hister” (Adolf “Hitler”).

To be beast-bitingly blunt, the above prophecy foretells the death of this “Mabus” triggering the unraveling (defaite) and undoing of humans and animals. That sounds both ecologically and apocalyptically lurid. Not only war but also climate change is inferred. A hundred nations go to war, because main in Old French is a heraldic allusion to the mail fisted right “hand” of state. We are therefore talking about 100 nations in a war of vengeance at once swift and devastating. It could undo the world.

The prophecy ends with the usual apocalyptic sequence Nostradamus used to convey dire times in the early 21st century: fresh water shortages from today’s super-droughts across Australia, the American South and Mediterranean, central Asia and Africa. Food production may not be sustained. Global famine lurks “when the comet will pass” or “run.”

A “comet” plays two roles in Nostradamus: either a falling missile or a portentous comet appearing in the sky in times of the final Antichrist.

[Not only Ray Mabus but his boss, President Obama] is one of four top candidates for Mabus. Mabus working for Obama might be just the kind of double entendre Nostradamus often utilized.

You see, not only does Barack “Obama” translate into “Mabus”:

Obama (phonetically pronounced “ouBama”) = Ubama = maabu = Mabu, etc. Add then the one missing letter by replacing the redundant “a” and you get Mabu(s).

Obama Mabu(s)?

Meet Ray Mabus, your pick for the next Secretary of the Navy.

Other candidates are out there, far more deserving the label “antichrist” than Obama or Ray.

Although there have been some interesting matches for Mabus that in the end did not stand the test of objective events, the coming of Ray Mabus into Obama’s cabinet is at least linguistically interesting. A perfect match, so it would seem.

I personally lean towards Saddam Hussein being Nostradamus’ best candidate for Mabus. I have not come to this conclusion lightly but have produced a digital book on the matter after 21 years on the trail of the Third Antichrist. You can see an overview about the book here: Mabus Obama.

Ray Mabus is not the first man to look like a perfect fit for Nostradamus’ Antichrist. Good leaders as well as evil leaders can also decode the name, such as Obama.

Who is Mabus?

This is the most topical of Nostradamian subjects. It is the prophetic mystery to solve of a detective story where soothsaying becomes “sleuth-saying” taking you through a fascinating labyrinth of possibilities, some of which are coming true in our times.

John Hogue

(20 May 2009)

This entry was posted in MABUS Code and tagged antichrist, Century 2 Quatrain 62, Hogue, Mabus, Nostradamus, prophecy, Ray Mabus,Secretary of the Navy, Sworn in, Third Antichrist. Bookmark thepermalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

US lost the War in Afghanistan

The US officially lost the war in Afghanistan today when this news came out....

By Hamid Shalizi2 hours ago

By Hamid Shalizi

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai agreed on a cooperation pact with Iran on Sunday, an Afghan official said, while continuing to resist signing a long-term security agreement with the United States.

Karzai struck the deal with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Tehran in a move that will be greeted with suspicion by his U.S. ally, which is trying to convince him to sign the security accord governing any post-2014 U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

"Afghanistan agreed on a long-term friendship and cooperation pact with Iran," Karzai's spokesman Aimal Faizi said. "The pact will be for long-term political, security, economic and cultural cooperation, regional peace and security."

He said a formal document would be prepared and signed soon.

In August Afghanistan signed a strategic cooperation pact with Iran covering mainly security issues, but Faizi said the proposed new agreement would have much broader scope.

Many Afghans believe such a bargain with Iran, at odds with the United States since the 1979 Islamic revolution, may harm Afghanistan's uneasy relationship with its Western allies.

The U.S. bilateral security pact is a decade-long agreement that would provide a legal basis for about 8,000 U.S. troops to stay on after the NATO-led combat mission ends next year.

Its future was thrown into doubt last month when Karzai said he would sign only if new conditions were met, and then only after Afghanistan's elections in April.

Iran has long opposed NATO's presence in Afghanistan and is the only country to have asked Karzai not to sign the agreement

Rouhani reinforced that message after meeting Karzai. "All foreign troops should be withdrawn from the region," he posted on his official Twitter account. "(The) security of Afghanistan should be entrusted to the Afghan people."

.02¢

Friday, December 13, 2013

More SNOWGLOBE news

NSA leaders split on giving amnesty to Snowden

Thursday, December 12, 2013

The drone war

Officials: US drone strike kills 13 in Yemen wedding convoy

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Look who is balking ...

Yes, Virginia, there will be an Iran sanctions bill

Congress will act, whether the White House likes it or not

In the news... Russia

U.S. lawmakers warn of sanctions if Ukraine violence worsens

Russia may answer conventional attack with nukes

Monday, December 9, 2013

Sailing ship.

Is Ray Mabus Nostradamus’ MABUS?

Sunday, December 8, 2013

US lost the War in Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Iran plan cooperation pact amid tensions with U.S.

Friday, December 13, 2013

More SNOWGLOBE news

Miller: Levinson report may give family more lever...

Mother of Amish school shooter granted unexpected ...

Phony sign language interpreter blames schizophren...

Teen with "affluenza" gets no jail time in deadly ...

Inside the former U.S. Embassy in Iran

Should Snowden get amnesty in exchange for remaini...

Uncle of North Korean leader executed

GOP leadership fights back against budget deal cri...

Pope Francis captures imagination of the world

Nev. family's day of fun became struggle for survi...

NYC requires flu shot for all preschool, daycare c...

Mandela's casket on view as world says goodbye

EU has failed to defend Edward Snowden, says activist group

Thursday, December 12, 2013

The drone war

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Look who is balking ...

In the news... Russia

Monday, December 9, 2013

Sailing ship.

Is Ray Mabus Nostradamus’ MABUS?

Sunday, December 8, 2013

US lost the War in Afghanistan